Ex-River Rat acquitted of sodomy in 42 minutes

Former Albany River Rat Robert “Bobby” Hughes was acquitted of a charge he sodomized an intoxicated woman he picked up in a Delmar tavern.

The jury of six men and six woman deliberated for 42 minutes before returning the not guilty verdict.

“I’m thankful. I want to go home to my family,” Hughes said afterward, praising his attorney, Robert Molloy, whom he hugged after the verdict.

Hughes was from the Toronto area. His mother, identified only as Heidi, and two sisters, rejoiced upon the verdict in Albany County Court. The two sisters embraced and they were all in tears. Hughes hugged one of his sisters.

He said Molloy of Latham “saved my life.”

He was unsure about whether he would resume a hockey career. Hughes was a River Rat until August 2009 when he was traded to the Bridgeport Sound Tigers.

Asked if he’d ever return to Albany, Hughes said: “No, never.”

Jurors began deliberating the case shortly after noon, but not before hearing a prosecutor suggest the hockey player slipped the alleged victim a possible “date rape” pill.

Hughes, 22, a Toronto-area native, faced up to 25 years in prison if convicted of sodomizing the woman after they met inside a Delmar bar on Oct. 18, 2008.

The “date rape” pill suggestion surfaced during the summation of Assistant District Attorney Shannon Sarfoh, who noted the antihistamine over-the-counter drug Benadryl was found in the alleged victim’s system. The woman did not recall ever taking the drug, the prosecutor noted.

“Could he have slipped Benadryl in her drink?” Sarfoh told jurors in Albany County Court. “Yeah.”

All told, drugs in the woman’s system — some anti-depressants and anti-anxiety pills she remembers taking in the days before the alleged attack — included six known as possible “date rape” drugs, Sarfoh said.

Defense Attorney Robert Molloy, who has called the encounter a consensual “one night stand,” immediately objected to the inference that his client tampered with the woman’s drink. Acting Supreme Court Justice Dan Lamont overruled him.

As lawyers spoke, both the woman and her sister sat in the gallery, the sister at times in tears. As they have throughout the trial, Hughes’ mother and two female relatives of Hughes sat on the other side.

Key to the case was the woman’s state of mind. Prosecutors say she was in no condition to consent to sex with Hughes.

But Molloy today called it a false allegation, adding, “You can’t ask Bobby Hughes to pay the price because (the woman) chooses not to remember this event … see this for what it is. It’s a one-night ‘hook-up’ between two people who hooked up in a bar. It’s not more than that. It’s not less than that.”

Sarfoh, who said the alleged victim was “out of her mind” at the time, used a timeline to illustrate the events of the night. The timeline started from when the woman, now 40, was picked up by a friend and the friend’s boyfriend. After two stops, they arrived at My Place, a bar and restaurant.

Sarfoh, among other arguments, questioned why Hughes initially told Bethlehem detectives, in an Oct. 23, 2008 statement, that the woman fell outside My Place and appeared “very intoxicated and possibly on drugs.”

At the time, Hughes denied having any sex — or even attraction — to the woman. The next year, a DNA test revealed the likelihood of someone other than Hughes being her sexual partner to be more than 52.2 million to 1. Hughes later conceded the two had sex but said it was consensual.

Sarfoh noted that while testifying Wednesday, Hughes denied the woman even fell outside the bar. Sarfoh also said that while Hughes testified that he and the woman had vaginal and anal sex, there was no evidence anything but anal sex took place during the incident, which went into Oct. 19, 2008.

Molloy questioned why Hughes would give the woman his name and cellphone number earlier in the night had he planned to attack her. But Sarfoh said, “It’s not a premeditated crime. It’s a crime of opportunity.”

The victim testified last Friday that she met Hughes at My Place and they exchanged small talk. After her two friends left, she said she stayed because she saw high school friends in the bar. She said the next thing she remembered was waking up in an apartment complex, which is where Hughes lived.

In his summation. Molloy told jurors several witnesses testified that the woman did not appear out-of-it or intoxicated at My Place. He questioned how she could have suddenly have become “physically helpless” a short time later.

“When is enough, enough?” Molloy asked the jury. “When do you believe the woman was not drunk?”

Molloy also noted the woman remembers speaking to police after the alleged attack — yet does not remember numerous phone conversations later on with a friend in Alaska that equaled 89 minutes.

89 Responses

Mrs Cleaver – a very coherent statement. Often blogs attract folks making half-a$$ed comments concerning things they know nothing about (I include myself – occasionally – in this group)

The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I believe their privacy should be protected to the same extent as the accuser. After the facts have been evaluated by a jury, if convicted, then the name should be released to the public.

Everyone is glad that Mr Hughes will not be back in Albany. What about the drunk 40 yr old who may go out and cry wolf again? What about hewr kids? Has anyone looked into her past and scrutinized her like they have with Mr. Hughes? Maybe now is the time so she will not endanger herself, children or someone else again.

I feel bad for this kid. He was found innocent, and from the sounds of it, a trial/charges probably shouldn’tve been brought to begin with- and now we have one more person who hates our area enough to never come back, and surely, to not encourage others to come here.

I get the comparison OJ and the VanDersloot cases, but with the OJ case, there was tons of evidence; VanDersloot’s own behavior just came off as damning. There wasn’t any of that here with this guy.

She herself took drugs that could have caused her to become disoriented- I think typically you are not supposed to take antidepressants- then drank, which is NOT recommended on most anti-depressants I’m familiar with; then accused him of slipping her some drugs. I’m sorry, but why do I doubt this would have been the first time she drank on these meds? And still, that does not a rape case make.

This is the first I am hearing of the hospital- but it is well documented that some actions, even if consensual, involving what would fall into the sodomy laws could cause tearing and thus, bleeding.

Laurie, based on your post yesterday, I believe you owe him an apology
I think your the moron here. Do you have some previous history that could possibly make you hate men this badly? I think the only thing disgusting is your opinion.

1.Fortunately this disgusting moron is digging his own grave with his stupid contradictions and lies. I hope he rots in prison forever.

I agree that the jury did the right thing—this was exactly as one juror said-a he said she said without the she said. However he did one thing wrong. He lied to the police. While that is not a big deal it should not go unnoticed. Maybe Soares can actually win that one on trial as the kid admitted he lied to police. It would be Soares first jury win in about six months. Know when to pick your battles. I don’t buy that Hughes was scared talking to two plain clothes police officers at a stewarts store. He’s a fighting hockey player-in this case he showed signs of being a coward, it is not like they were beating him with a phone book.

The hockey player is a scum bag, let’s hope he goes somewhere else to prey on the drunk. Just because a case is not proven does not mean the man isn’t guilty. I’m sorry, did I call him a man? My mistake.

I think there is a lesson to be learned from this. Ladies, you cannot go out and drink the way men can. Stop trying to be equal to a man, because it just won’t work. If you get drunk, and loose your judgement, then a man will do what he wants with you. Learn from what happened here, and the other posts comments you read. People think that she deserved what she got. Is that right? No. But it happened, and it will happen again and again. Just because a man can go out and drink doesn’t mean that you can without putting yourself at risk. People in general will not have sympathy for you, so you better protect yourself before it is too late. Don’t go out and drink.

I stand by my statements. I think the woman was probably mentally ill but did you know they can be raped as well? Nobody would bring these kind of charges just for fun or attention-look at all the frightening statements here made about her. I have no history and don’t hate men, I hate rapists.

It is sad that so many people can say such harsh things about a woman they don’t know and a trial they were NOT in the court room to actually see and hear. Some of you should also do research about anti-depressants and how they work…they are not used to control emotions. As far as being out drinking all night? That is not a true statement. Let’s hope that no one that any of you know ever have this happen to them. I hope your nasty comments don’t deter any other victims from coing forward. Why would someone put themselves through all of this scrutiny and embarassment if it weren’t true…instead they could have just kept it quiet and no one would ever have known besides the two involved.

Just another case that should have never of went to trial. It’s more taxpayers money gone to waste and if the guy wants to sue for malicious prosicution it will be even more tax payer money that will foot the bill.
The District Attorneys office should not be an elected one, instead it should be a civil service one. That way the most qualified one would run the show instead of the most popular.
The reality here people that an incompitent DA cost tax payers money!!! The cost of the trial and possible law suit, lets not forget about the whole steriod scandal that we never hear about. That case will cost tax payers millions.
To bad when an elected official is awful that there isnt a clause for a speciial election, because if there was alot of elected people would out of a job, including the DA.

I went out with my girlfriends for my bachelorette party. I confess that I did have a bit to drink. I was not falling down drunk, but enough that my judgement was skewed. Let’s just say that my girlfriends looked everywhere for me, and told the bartender. The bartender knew where the guy lived, (apparently he waits around for women who are drunk, and lives near the bar for that reason). They found me just in time before anything happened. What was supposed to be a fun night out with the girls turned into a bad dream. If they hadn’t been looking out for me, it would have been a nightmare. I have never set foot in a bar since then. I’m not saying that the victim is responsible, but I am saying that boys do mean things to girls when they can.

I really hope that both Hughes can get his hockey career back and life on track and I also hope that the alleged victim can get her life on track. Nobody wins in the case. Most of all though, I hope the DA in Albany County can start to really understand that the job is not about trying to make himself famous. The job is about justice and doing what is right. Either he never understood that or he has really lost sight of that. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but has David Soares ever tried a single case down there? I don’t think he has. He probably would not even know what table to sit at in the courtroom nevermind complex evidentiary issues. Politicians like him are really just unqualified to be DAs. This guy is making the call on whether to prosecute and has never even tried a case. What the hell is that?

No one really knows what happened between these two people that night, and I’m not interested in speculating on it. I would just like to say that the victim-blaming on this board hurts victims of sexual assault, and prevents future victims from coming forward. Please think about how you would feel if your daughter, sister, girlfriend, friend, etc. was a rape victim. Would you want her reading the statements on this blog which blame her? Would you want her to not seek treatment at an ER or report the crime to the police, for fear of a reaction like those on this blog?

I’m very disturbed at some of the victim blaming going on here. I don’t know either person and wasn’t in court for this case, but I did read the articles and I’m not surprised he was acquitted. And it probably was the correct decision since both parties’ stories were so inconsistent. It became a he said/she said. But that’s what happens when you have two extremely intoxicated people try recounting the incident. However to think that she was just flippantly throwing around the claim that she was raped because she was embarrassed or wanted to ruin someones life is offensive and ignorant. Those doing so have obviously never experienced acquaintance rape, have never gone through having a rape kit conducted on them, have never been repeatedly questioned by police and attorneys (sometimes in not-so-supportive ways), have never testified as a victim at a trial in front of a bunch of strangers. It’s not entertaining or easy. It’s not like Law and Order and other TV shows. It’s long, grueling, invasive, humiliating, graphic, exhausting and traumatizing. A person who falsely alleges rape simply because they are embarrassed or they “changed their minds” I do not believe would make it through to the end of trial without breaking and the lie coming out. I believe this woman was probably raped.

However, I also believe that Hughes truly believes he did not do anything wrong. Both he and the woman were apparently very intoxicated which would have clouded their judgment. She was probably not in any condition to legally consent, but he was probably not in any condition to tell the difference. That doesn’t mean the victim is lying or that she is to blame.

In the end, he was acquitted – not necessarily because he’s innocent, but because there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the justice system working – not a corrupt or overly aggressive DA.

#51
No matter which way the pie is sliced, not “all” women who engage in promiscuous, and/or unsolicited sex are victims of date rape. Yes, some are, and, usually, the victim is entitled to the strongest retribution the law allows. More often then not, the victim of date rape is young, unsolicitous, and caught totally off guard. Not, so, in the “hockey pucker case”. No need to repeat specifics but the female in the aforementioned case was nearly twice the age of the accused, and, by all accounts, very familiar with the inside decor of Delmar’s numerous tap rooms. In other words, she has been “around the horn once or twice”. Date rape cases are “sexy” (pun intended) and our current DA seems to favor the notoriety all types of sexy cases bring to his office. His record speaks for itself in this regard. Go check the files, you will see for yourself.

#51…You couldn’t be more right. THER WAS NO EVIDENCE! Next time one of these moronic DA’s brings a case against you with no evidence I hope you will feel like “its the system working.” You don’t bring a case to trial with no evidence. That is just common sense, something you clearly lack.

Hughes did do nothing wrong, what are we a bunch of hypocrites here, didn’t we all go out to bars when we were in our 20’s trying to hook up with someone.
Come down from your high horses and admit it, she raped him, not the other way around. She went to a bar to have sex, met a guy how would, then dumped her, she got mad called the police and cried rape.
The only one raped here was the accused by a perverted old lady.

I’d still love to kknow her name so we could see who she accuses next time.

#52-
It doesn’t matter how old a woman is, or how many bars she has been to. If it’s not consensual, it’s rape. I’m not saying that this was what happened in this case, because none of us can be sure. What I’m saying is that someone’s age or sexual experience doesn’t make them any less of a victim, or any less worthy of respect.

#55-
So Hughes did nothing wrong by trying to hook up with someone, but when the woman did it, she’s raping somebody? Sexist much? Give me a break.

Let’s be honest, the problem here is as follows–two drunk people hook up and have sex. Only one of them faces the reality that the next morning they can be arrested for rape. Rape is serious, rape is awful, but to equate a change of heart with rape is preposterous.

As for the “why would she put herself through the truama of rape investigation” argument? Well, she has two kids at home and is brought home by the police in the middle of the night with, according to the testimony, her pantyhose hanging out of her purse.

I’m sick and tired of the attacks on this woman. If she falsely accused Hughes, then obviously that is a crime and should be punished. But just because he was found not guilty DOES NOT mean that these were false charges; rather, it means there wasn’t enough evidence to prove guilt. None of us know what really happened, so let’s stop the character assassination on this woman. It’s irrelevant how old she is, if she has kids at home, if she was out drinking, if she is on antidepressants – NONE of these things negate a woman’s right to say no to sex, nor do they negate the man’s responsibility to verify consent before proceeding. Drinking, previous flirtation, etc. do NOT make it okay to have sex with somebody against their will. Now I’m not saying that this is what happened to this woman, because I wasn’t there so I don’t know. The point is, neither does anyone else on this board, so to call this woman a liar and imply that she deserved what she got is completely uncalled for.

It is time for DA Soares to step down. That man is beyond a joke. He has no clue what he is doing and no control over his staff. We need a DA with EXPERIENCE, who knows what it is like to prosecute and try cases. I would like the TU to do an article on the number of cases Soares has actually ever prosecuted himself… has the man ever done a trial?? Time for a new DA to come in and clean house and start over again with new prosecutors. Or perhaps bring back some of the old ones… who used to win cases! Albany should be ashamed for continuing to elect Soares. I hope this case is a wake up call.